Jim Thompson wrote: -==snip=-
> To be perfectly blunt, I think the > "we operated under part 97" was a dodge. Team PAD is composed of: Andy Meng, N8MX Ben Corrado, KC8RKO Justin Rigling, KC8OIO Brandon Schamer, KG4NVK http://www.wifiworldrecord.com/team.html Given they are all hams, it's very possible they were indeed operating under part 97. Here is their write-up: http://www.wifiworldrecord.com/2005writeup.html Violation of FCC part 97 rules? ---> "Both ends of the link were using SSH" 97.309(b) (b) Where authorized by Secs. 97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by an EIC to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must: (1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code; (2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; (3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted. Why did they not open a Telnet session that is open for every observer to see? Why did they need an SSH tunnel on this link? "The connection had an astounding signal strength of -37 dBm, bottoming out at around -50 dBm throughout the 3 hours. The noise levels were around -84 dBm" With that kind of link margin, they should have been able to do this with much more power. (6 dB = double the distance) What on earth do they need an amp for?? Violation of FCC part 97 rules? ---> "When the amp was used the signal strength bumped up to -18 dBm at 124.9 miles!" 97.313 Transmitter power standards. (a) An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications. also interesting... "the base station end had FAA 2.4 ghz communications so we chose to keep our ERP low on that end" Why did they need an unbalanced link?? Jim, To be perfectly fair about it, I think that DefCon should amend their rules for the shootout to limit it under FCC part 15 regs and any stock Wi-Fi card. Without this restriction, the DefCon shootout is meaningless. I don't have any problem with enhancing the drivers do deal with the distance, but it will just become a my dish is bigger than your dish contest. ...I wonder if doppler is too much to make an EME contact using Wi-Fi?
